Six years ago, Federal Labor MPs railed against the Howard government over its plans to excise the mainland from Australia's migration zone to deter asylum seekers. They aggressively argued that the idea was a stain on Australia's national character and it would reduce the Parliament and the nation. Now some of those same Labor MPs are ministers and they will argue in favour of a similar bill. The Government wants the legislation rushed through Parliament this week.

Transcript

TONY EASTLEY: Six years ago Federal Labor MPs railed against the Howard government over its plans to excise the mainland from Australia's migration zone to deter asylum seekers.

They aggressively argued that the idea was a stain on Australia's national character and it would reduce the Parliament and the nation.

Now some of those same Labor MPs are ministers and they will argue in favour of a similar bill.

The Government wants the legislation rushed through Parliament this week.

The Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has spoken to chief political correspondent Sabra Lane.

SABRA LANE: Chris Bowen, back in 2006 you said the Coalition's idea to excise the mainland from the migration zone was "a bad bill with no redeeming feature" and "a stain on our national character". By your own words you're now responsible for staining Australia's national character aren't you?

Firstly, yes, this is a change of position. Yes, you can go back and look at what I said as an opposition backbencher a long time ago and you can compare it what I'm doing now as Minister for Immigration. That's perfectly legitimate.

And I've changed the Labor Party's position and I've changed my mind based on the evidence, based on the recommendation of the Houston panel and based on the evidenced that this will save lives.

If I've got a choice between being consistent with something I said six years ago and saving somebody's life, well I'll save somebody's life.

Secondly, this is part of an integrated package unlike this one-off measure that the Howard government proposed in 2006.

SABRA LANE: This bill that you're introducing though today really relates though to a small percentage of the overall problem...

CHRIS BOWEN: Yes.

SABRA LANE: Not many people actually make it to the mainland.

CHRIS BOWEN: That's correct.

SABRA LANE: Is this more about sounding tough?

CHRIS BOWEN: No. Firstly, as I say, we previously had said we'd implement every recommendation of the Houston panel. This is one of the recommendations of the Houston panel. I don't believe you can cherry pick and say "oh we'll do this bit but not that bit." You've got to have a fully integrated, determined approach.

You know the Houston panel for example said, "this amendment will be important to ensure that the introduction of processing outside Australia does not encourage asylum seekers to avoid these arrangements by attempting to enter the Australian mainland. Such attempts would increase existing dangers inherent in irregular maritime travel." I was quoting there from the report.

So the evidence is pretty strong here. Yes the numbers involved are small. About 1500 people have attempted to make the mainland since 2008 and a smaller proportion have actually succeeded.

The arrangements in place now could create the perverse incentive to strike for the mainland to avoid being processed offshore. That wasn't the case in the last couple of years where the numbers arriving in the mainland are small.

SABRA LANE: Labor's Pacific solution so far has failed to slow the arrival of boats to Australia. The number of boats arriving here has actually increased since the Government embraced offshore processing. I think it's 30 per cent more since the changes were introduced compared with the same comparable period. The boats aren't slowing.

CHRIS BOWEN: No let me make a couple of points. Firstly, yes, we have seen a continuing increase, particularly from some cohorts, particularly from Sri Lanka for example. Some other types of arrivals have reduced since we made those changes.

But I've consistently said we need a fully integrated total package. It's not me who said for years: well why don't we call Nauru and that will fix the problem. I said...

SABRA LANE: When will it work Minister? It's now your responsibility. When will it work?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well Sabra, as I was just saying, I think we need a completely integrated package being introduced and implemented and clearly communicated in the region.

SABRA LANE: The Government keeps clinging to the idea of the Malaysia solution. What active talks are actually continuing now with the Malaysian government to negotiate the strengthened protections that the expert panel called for?

CHRIS BOWEN: I'm not sure I share your language there but nevertheless I take your point. The point is here, we could have all the discussions with Malaysia we like. We could enter into all the increased negotiations and conditions that we like. I would want to see some sort of evidence from the opposition that they would do what I've done and the Labor Party has done and said, well we'll do what it takes to save lives here, even if it means changing our position.

We can't implement the Malaysia agreement without the agreement of the Parliament which means we need a change in position from the Greens party or the Liberal Party.

And the Liberal Party previously has said, "oh we could never enter into an agreement with Malaysia or approve an agreement with Malaysia because they're not signatories to the Refugee Convention." Well they want to turn boats around to Indonesia which is not a signatory and they want to turn boats around to Sri Lanka which is not a signatory. So their argument frankly lies in tatters.

If you, you raised with me earlier, you raised with me...

SABRA LANE: Well the allegations now of hypocrisy though...

CHRIS BOWEN: Well...

SABRA LANE: ...sound hollow given what the Labor Party has just done regarding the excision of the mainland...

CHRIS BOWEN: No, quite the contrary Sabra. I'm making the point that the Government has said we'll do what it takes to save lives, even if it means taking positions that we've opposed before, even if it means people trawling through our speeches and pointing out what we said before, because we're determined to save lives.

And the Opposition could show a similar determination to try and save people's lives and to actually do something to back up their sloganeering.